Since you have never defined what you mean by complexity in the context of
evolution, how can we accept that what you say is true?
>
>The age of the Earth is not so easy. Creation Scientists have no good
>answer for how
>light gets here in mere thousands of years from very distant stars.
>Evolutionists
>have no good answer for the lack of historical evidence of man's existence
>much beyond 5,000 years ago.
>
That's easy; writing was only invented 5000 years ago.
>
>But, it is inexcusable to dismiss the necessity of God
>creating a
>fully functional and mature universe if he indeed did mere thousands of
>years ago.
>
>> I happen to see a lot of correct science on both sides. And which side is
>> the pseudoscience can be highly debated as well. And I think a
>> differentiation should be made between natural selection and
>> macroevolution. They really are different arguments altogether, despite
>> what definition goes where, I see both sides talking right past the other
>> all the time. Most or all YECs would agree with nat. sel. wholeheartedly.
>> That is one issue noone really can debate, seriously anyway.
>
>There's nothing to debate about a truism. However, it's not justified to
>say
>that because some deformed animal is observed to die prematurely....
>
That's not natural selection.
>
>...that man did
>indeed evolve from apes -- as Evolutionists do (see any college biology
>text that uses NS as solid and direct evidence that Evolution is true).
>
That also is not true. Evolution is a readily observable phenomenon;
natural selection is one mechanism that explains how the phenomenon of
evolution works.
>
>> >In contrast there is virtually no evidence in support of creationism.
>
>> At which point creationists can say exactly the same thing about
>> evolutionists, leading to yet another strawman argument. And don't
>> respond
>> with "but they're wrong, I'm not" because that's a bit arrogant first of
>> all, and second of all doesn't convince anyone.
>
>What does the Evolutionist want evidence for? That their parents are
>homosapiens too? Maybe we lack that evidence. But Creationists, for
>the most part, assert essentially that Evolution didn't happen. The
>burden of proof is on the Evolutionists, not just because they are the
>ones making a positive assertion, but because they claim their assertion
>is wholly based on science. It is pure icing on the cake for Creationists
>to point to such things as the stability of species in the fossil record.
>
Evolution is an accepted scientific phenomenon. You creationists disagree?
Fine; prove it wrong, but don't expect scientists to waste time trying to
prove right something that is self-evident, if you would only open your eyes
and look at it.
>
>The Evolutionist digs desperately for any bone fragment that he can imagine
>is some sort of transitional form such as an ape/man....
>
So far we have thousands of these "fragments" (including whole skeletons)
that establish a very nice transitional series.
>
>...the Creationist can
>go to the very bottom of the fossil record (the Cambrian)....
>
The Cambrian is not the "bottom" of the fossil record. There is at least
100 million years of upper Precambrian fossiliferous layers, and bacterial
fossils go back at least to 3.5 billion years ago.
>
>...and point out a
>number of major marine invertebrate groups which can be found living today.
>
Groups, yes; species, no. Not one species that lived during the Cambrian is
still alive today. And why are their no modern marine species that inhabit
the same environment in the Cambrian deposits?
>
>And, if before the flood there were billions of sea bottom-dwelling humans,
>I'm certain the Cambrian would be full of human fossils.
>
Neither the Cambrian nor the Precambrian are composed exclusively of marine
deposits; there are quite a few dry land deposits sitting between marine
deposits. Why are there no modern human fossils in these dry land
sediments?
Kevin L. O'Brien